Posts by David Booth7

jadetrucker43 said:You can laugh, sure—but you can’t actually do anything about it.

Oh, I think I can, but if I'm not supposed to... 🙂 well, hmmm, maybe I can after all...

Thanks to everyone for all the time and effort you put in—everything is finally squared away now!!

David Booth7 said:Hey, is there any way I could change my handle to: Peasant??

Nope.

Man, what a bummer. I guess my only option left is to just scrap this account entirely and sign up fresh as Hillbilly?
Looks like I'm out of luck then....

Hey, is there any way I could change my handle to: Peasant??

Nope.

Sarah Rodriguez4 said:Just head over to Options > Settings & Options > Edit Options and make sure you check the box for Microsoft private messaging.

Man, you totally saved my profile—thanks a million!!!
I definitely owe you a drink...

jadetrucker43 said:I went ahead and escalated the issue—it's being looked at now—but in the meantime, you can just use this link to get into your messages.

Thanks in advance, 🙂

I guess nobody’s actually reading my posts, or maybe I’m just shouting into the void here and there’s no help to be found 😢

Help!!
I was trying to change my username and I think I clicked the wrong thing somewhere...
Now, I can't see my profile options or my DMs—nothing at all, just this:

HTML Code:

What do I do? How can I get my profile settings back???



No private messages, no profile options... nothing. 😢

David Booth7 said:Help me out here!!
I was trying to change my username and I think I clicked the wrong thing somewhere...
Now the option for my profile, private messages, everything—it’s just gone. All I see is this:

Hey, David Booth7!
Last visit: Today at 3:22 PM

What do I do now? How can I get my profile options back???

Just start a new thread and attach a screenshot...

Wait, what even is a screenshot???
And how am I supposed to upload one?? And where do I go to start a new thread???

Thanks in advance for any help...

Start a new topic in this subforum. A screenshot is just a "print screen" capture—there are instructions for that in the top-tema section...

Help me out here!!
I was trying to change my username and I think I clicked the wrong thing somewhere...
Now the option for my profile, private messages, everything—it’s just gone. All I see is this:

Hey, David Booth7!
Last visit: Today at 3:22 PM

What do I do now? How can I get my profile options back???

Just start a new thread and attach a screenshot...

Nancy Williams58 said:Why? Or let me flip the question: is it more logical and realistic to assume everything went down the way the Romans usually did things (because why would they suddenly make exceptions?), or is it more "realistic" to take a description of the crucifixion and the walk to Golgotha at face value when it was written by someone much later based on hearsay or some third-party account? Honestly, the second option loses even more credibility when you realize the early church wasn't exactly rushing to talk about or depict that specific act. It wasn't until Christianity really took root that you started seeing it show up in art.

I’m leaning toward the first version. To me, it’s way more grounded and makes more sense—assuming, of course, that this whole thing actually happened. Again—there was likely already a pillar standing there where the execution took place; that's just how the Romans operated. It’s incredibly easy for some storyteller to claim someone "carried" an entire pillar on top of the cross just to make the scene look more dramatic.

I totally get where you're coming from, but the thing is, NOT ALL Biblical scholars agree that a pillar was already waiting at Golgotha. That's what I'm talking about—the Bible, not some specific denomination.
Best,

Nancy Williams58 said:So what, you're just assuming every single word written in the Bible is a literal, 100% factual account?

Not even close!!! I mean, look, the Bible is full of symbolism—lots of it—but there’s also plenty of stuff meant to be taken quite literally; you just have to know how to tell them apart, I guess. 🙂

But in that previous part, I was definitely talking about things happening LITERALLY... unless you actually think that bit is symbolic? If so, please, do enlighten me. ☕

rapidbear65 said:Thanks! I figured as much, but better to ask and be sure...

Though, honestly, it’s probably even better to double-check the answer just to be absolutely certain 🙂

rapidbear65 said:For real, "sacrifice" doesn't even sound right. Mercy, though? Definitely. As for Johanan and Joshua? I don't know much about them or the religion, but I really want to get to the heart of what they actually meant. Still, those names feel familiar... maybe I've heard them used in translations before...

John is basically saying Yahweh is merciful, like an American version of John

Joshua, or Yehoshua—which means Yahweh is salvation, essentially Jesus

I mean, I don't know—it’s just one of those things that stays on my mind, I suppose. It feels like we're constantly circling the same arguments, isn't it? You look at the way things are heading, and you can't help but wonder if anyone is actually listening to the underlying logic of it all. Maybe I'm overthinking things—I definitely tend to do that—but there's a certain weight to the current situation that feels... I don't know, inevitable? It’s like we’re watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is arguing about the color of the upholstery instead of the tracks ahead. Anyway, just a thought. Just me rambling, I guess. kaže:
Look, I’m not even talking about the Bible here. I’m talking about actual Roman customs—which, let's face it, don't exactly line up with what's written in the Bible. Besides, that pillar wasn't exactly light, was it? And since the Romans were pretty practical people, they had a habit of using those things for more than one purpose. It makes you wonder, really... how much can one person actually carry—both a pillar and a crossbar? Maybe there's some data out there somewhere regarding the potential weight, though I guess I'd have to go looking for it.

Besides, I mean—it wasn't like Jesus was carrying the whole thing the entire way... I guess.

It doesn't really change the core of the matter, I suppose. It was probably shaped like a cross—but only because that’s just how the Romans did things back then. I mean, does anyone honestly believe the Romans would go through the trouble of altering their entire execution process just for Jesus? To them, he was nobody—just some random troublemaker or an outlaw, nothing more. They weren't exactly known for changing their traditions on a whim over one guy.

Maybe... I guess. 🙂 Well, I guess it’s safe to say that even in the scientific community, everyone isn't exactly singing from the same hymn sheet—not that they always agree on much of anything, really. It’s rarely a case of total consensus, is it? There's always someone over in a lab somewhere—maybe in Boston or maybe out in Palo Alto—who thinks the rest of the field has it all wrong. I mean, science is basically just a long, slow argument that happens to produce facts eventually, I suppose. It's less of a unified front and more of a messy, ongoing debate. ☕

Why shouldn't it be a topic of conversation? I mean, the core question is really just this: why did Jesus die? Like, if you look at the physics of it—carrying a hundred-kilogram beam and a cross over, I don't know, however many miles—could that actually be enough to kill a person? Just the sheer physical strain of it all... I guess it's worth wondering.

Where exactly are you pulling that 220-pound figure from? I mean, I guess I might have missed something, but I can't quite place where that number came from—maybe it was just a slip of the tongue or something.
Here we go again—it’s not like He carried the whole Pillar by Himself the entire way... I mean, if you think about it, maybe there's more to that story than we usually let ourselves believe.
Look, before we get ahead of ourselves—I guess you really ought to do a bit of homework first. You should probably look into which specific location those researchers are actually pointing to when they talk about Golgotha, and then figure out where the starting point was and what that actual route looked like...
The Via Dolorosa—which spans about a quarter of a mile, if you're looking at the math—is one of those things that I guess scientists wouldn't even call a "correct" route, per se. It’s a bit more complicated than just a straight line, maybe.

Nancy Williams58 said:Look, maybe Jesus was crucified on a cross, maybe he wasn't. It's a toss-up. The whole "stake" vs. "cross" thing might just come down to the shape of the pole—if the crossbar was set slightly lower than the top, it could look like a T-shape or a standard cross depending on how you squint. It really boils down to whether the carpenter had a preference or if the Romans slapped the beam on near the top or right at the peak. Besides, prisoners weren't lugging around the entire heavy structure; they just carried the crossbar where their hands were tied. Later, their hands got nailed to that bar and the whole thing was hoisted up onto the pole. So, what the Jehovah's Witnesses are claiming might actually be technically true, but it doesn't change a damn thing about the cross being the symbol we recognize today.

:actually, no... I don't think so. 🙂 If you look at the Greek Bible regarding what Jesus carried on his way to Golgotha and how he was actually crucified, it’s all based on the exact same Greek word.
From what I can gather, nothing was just sitting there waiting for the condemned men once they reached Golgotha.
Anyway, that's not really even the point here—I mean, we've already touched on that a few times, haven't we?
Best,

I mean, who actually says a Christian isn't allowed to visit the Kaaba?? I’m pretty sure there’s at least one guy from England—not even for religious reasons, mind you, but because he’s basically an expert at organizing mass exits during moments of total panic.

Alex Ramos91 said:Look, maybe my Hebrew comes from the internet, but I actually double-checked this with a buddy of mine who studied Hebrew seriously.

You can dig into the details at this link (in English), and since apparently English is such a struggle for you, here’s a Google Translate version in German click

Anyway, the article compares the usage of the Hebrew words *yachid* and *echad*.
The first one always refers to a numerical "one"—just a single unit.
But *echad* can be a number, sure, but it’s also used to mean a "unified one"—like in Genesis 2:24, Genesis 11:6, 2 Chronicles 30:12, Ezra 2:64...
And that same "unified one" concept is exactly how it works in the Jewish Shema: "God is one"—meaning a unified oneness.

There's actually evidence for this: during the early Christian era, when people started talking about God as the Trinity, Jews would switch out the original *echad* for *yachid* when reciting the Shema.

In one sense, yeah—a child is the physical manifestation of two people becoming "one flesh."

But when Jesus was talking about divorce, he pointed directly back to Genesis 2:24 as his argument against it:
He answered, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said: 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

There isn't a single mention of children here. It's about the marriage itself—how through the union and intimacy of husband and wife, they become one flesh, whether they have kids or not. Paul makes the exact same point in 1 Corinthians 6:16: Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

Like my friend said: Moses used that same word in the Shema ("Hear, O Israel...") to describe God's oneness, and then used it again in Genesis 2 to describe the unified oneness of a marriage.
Look, God's oneness isn't some indivisible, unbreakable thing.

Hey,
mš

--Like a good friend of mine once said: There's a huge difference between just learning a language and having it in your soul. That goes for Hebrew, too... etc.
--Do I really need to keep responding with links? Just tell me what you think instead of sending more links. The internet is one thing, but a library is another—like they say, if you want real quality, you head to the library.
--Of course I know who Maimonides is... and others...
--I've written about *echad* vs *yachid* more times than I can count.
I'll comment more when I actually have the time...
A full response is coming... (and after that, like I said before, I'm done commenting on the Trinity)

Cheers

Harold Reyes3 said:

Using Hollywood movies as an argument for what "Jesus" looks like.

Well, from everything we know about Jesus, he had long curly hair and a beard.

And the claim about Christians being killed by Muslims almost every day.

Where is that happening? From what I understand regarding Islam, if a Muslim kills a Christian without any reason, by God's grace, they would certainly deserve hell after death.

Plus, you're forgetting what Muhammad said: anyone who kills a Christian or a person living in an Islamic state—where they pay taxes—won't enter paradise.
Basically, Christian lives are protected under Islam. Just look at how many Christians exist in the Islamic world! If Islam were truly a violent religion toward them, do you really think they’d still be there after more than fifteen hundred years?

In fact, I was watching a Western documentary the other night about Islamic history and stuff.

When Muslims took over Jerusalem, it actually turned out well for the Christian leaders. They could practice their faith, and they actually paid less in taxes to the Islamic state than they did to the Roman rulers before the Muslims arrived in Jerusalem.

Come on, why don't you explain to us what that cube actually represents (or who it represents) that people pilgrimage toward?

That cube is known as the first House of God. It was built by Abraham and his son Ishmael. That's why it's a holy site for Muslims.

It's just the direction people face during prayer; we aren't actually worshipping a stone.







Hajj is a religious duty for Muslims to visit these holy sites. It's also a way to prepare for Judgment Day. Standing on Arafat near Mecca is like a mini-simulation of Judgment Day itself—millions of people in one spot, everyone dressed exactly the same, whether they're kings or paupers. There is absolutely no difference between them.

Saying the Kaaba was the FIRST one isn't exactly accurate...
and besides, the Kaaba wasn't even the very first direction people turned toward in prayer...
and that part about there being no differences? Well, that's not quite right either...

We aren't really here to debate the Kaaba, so I won't get sidetracked, though if anyone actually needs proof, I could always provide some...

Harold Reyes3 said:

Why don't you start by defining "original sin"?

Look, based on what Jesus actually taught, that concept doesn't hold water. If this whole "original sin" thing were real, why would Jesus say children are the ones who will enter the Kingdom? It makes zero sense—how can you enter heaven carrying sin? 🙄The logic just isn't there. You're believing in something that flat-out contradicts everything Jesus himself said.

Are we all just sitting here debating Matthew 18:3?
Because it says, "Truly, I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.